Sovereignty or Submission?

As noted, this globalist rationale is based on the idea that America is in decline, therefore, it is better to get agreements and set up a favorable global system now, while we are still strong, in order that these arrangements will be in place decades from now. Of course, there would be no guarantee that a weaker America would be able to enforce any of the agreements that a stronger America had engineered.

Besides failing on realist grounds, the globalists’ arguments also fail on idealist grounds. Global governance is not consist with American democratic principles. Our highest political principles rest on the maintenance of our constitutional self-government. How is ceding democratic decision making to non-citizens in supranational bodies outside of the American constitutional process consistent with our principles and values? The argument is an oxymoron.

FP The globalists have made their first significant inroads in Europe. What have the consequences been?

Fonte: Over the past sixty years the European Union has slowly evolved into a post-national, post-democratic, and post-liberal type of regime. Power has shifted from national parliaments (e.g., British House of Commons) in democratic nation-states to unaccountable bureaucratic institutions in Brussels. The EU Deputy Ambassador to Washington told me that 60-80 percent of European laws today are initiated in Brussels.

The consequences have been negative not only for democratic decision-making, but also for traditional liberalism (individual rights, free speech) and the cause of liberty generally. EU elites have a similar ideology (transnational progressivism) and governing style to that the American academic left. Thus, just as in American universities, across Europe today, progressive left administrators attempt to restrict free speech, appease Islamist radicals, denigrate national patriotism, and sanction those who actively oppose radical Islamist ideology. Sections of major European cities have become “no-go zones” for democratic citizens, abandoned to radical Islamists and thuggish gangs.

The euro was created as a mostly political (rather than economic) instrument to weaken the democratic nation-state; instead, it has succeeded in severely damaging Europe’s economy. The predictable response of EU elites has been to “double down”, proposing more power to unaccountable Brussels institutions, less power for the democratic nations. Meanwhile as they promote even greater centralization, the European elites could soon be asking for financial assistance from US banks and political support from the US government.

FP: The global governance movement is quite anti-Israel. Why? And what has it done to weaken the Jewish State?

Fonte: The democratic state of Israel faces two major adversaries: one anti-democratic and one post-democratic. The first, of course, consists of radical Islamists and Arab rejectionists who seek the total annihilation of the Jewish state. The second adversary is the global governance coalition consisting of leading Western and Westernized transnational progressive elites in the European Union, the UN, some European governments, international law circles, major universities, American foundations, and NGOs, particularly so-called “human rights” groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

The globalists have launched a BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaign to de-legitimize Israeli democracy. They constantly wage “lawfare” against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) charging them either with “war crimes” on spurious grounds or with “violations” of “international law” for military actions (e.g., not warning enemy civilians before an air attack) that are not accepted as “international law” by leading democratic states including the US, India, and Israel itself.

For Western transnational progressives the existence of Israel as an independent democratic Jewish state is an affront to the globalists’ ideological conception of the subordination of nation-states to global legal authority. Both Israel and the United States because of their independence and refusal to submit to what the transnationalists portray as “global norms” and “global rules,” will remain targets of the Western Left in the decades to come.

FP: What are the chances that this world order might really come about? What will the world be like?

Fonte: The global governance project is utopian and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that a world order could be established along the lines that they propose (global peace, harmony, and a world-wide “rule of law” based on “progressive” principles.) Unfortunately, however, the globalists─both ideological transnational progressives and transnational pragmatists in corporate and establishment foreign policy circles─might obtain a considerable degree of influence among the American leadership class. If this happens─if globalist thinking becomes the conventional wisdom among American legal, academic, business, and political elites─the result would be, not the triumph of global governance, but the suicide of constitutional democracy. This would occur both in the realm of domestic self-government (as lawsuits replace national democratic politics) and in the arena of national security (as adherence to new global law cripples the ability of democracies, like the US and Israel, to defend themselves). Thus, although unable to achieve success on its own terms, the global governance project could disable and disarm liberal democracy in the US and throughout the world.

My book, "Satan's Trinity: Hitler, Stalin & Muhammad," will be available within the month and one may pre-order at http://www.satanstrinity.wordpress.com/ For the first time in history "HSM" appear together on a book cover. The idea behind the book is to make headway against the ludicrous idea that Muhammad should be conjoined with any religious leader/founder. Once this comparison, driven by actual names, has been made then it must be attacked. Once the attack has been launched then the attackers will be forced to defend their attack. Since the attack is indefensible then the "religion" Muhammad (if he existed) founded will begin to be viewed as the scam it is. This book has been written under the principle of KISS. And nothing is simpler to understand than Hitler and Stalin…..and now, Muhammad. Thank you for your time…….C"H"Martel

davarino

I need to get involved in Tea Party initiatives and help turn this country around. This global governance BS aint happenin, period.

sod

Since those left people are not found of our Constitution, they are entitled under our Constitution to leave and renounce their citizenship to live in a country where they claim having 'religious freedom' and 'human rights'.

The Constitution is how this great nation (apparently terrible in the eyes of the lefts) was built upon and is her foundation, we should never allow anyone to dig it up and destroy it.

StephenD

Any “Rule of Law” that does not hold as its primary objective, the protection of Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility, but rather is subject to “the collective” (global) interests first and foremost is, no matter what you name it, Totalitarianism and you have become no more than a subject rather than a citizen.

mrbean

Jim DeMint said: "Over the last 50 years, American attitudes have shifted from cherishing self-sufficiency and personal responsibility to craving cradle-to-grave security "guaranteed" by government. The result is that increasing numbers of Americans are dependent on government for their income, careers, health care, education, and other essentials. Government benefits–once concentrated on "the needy"–now extend into middle- and upper-middle-class households, even as more and more Americans see their income tax liabilities decrease. Today, the majority of Americans can vote themselves more generous government benefits at little or no cost to themselves. As a result, most have little fiscal incentive to restrain the continued growth of Big Government and the entitlements it dangles before them."

mrbean

Western women are the problem. Never marry one if you are smart. In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word .. .security. Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don't want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth. Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened … or if she becomes divorced … she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband. Ann Coulter is right. Deal with it.

Ghostwriter

You're still stuck in 1875,aren't you,mrbean?

mrbean

Hmmm,,, 1875,,,, we were still on the gold standard, no FED reserve, no income tax, no deposit spending, before the homsexual pedolfile Keynes and his failed economic theory infected economics, before the Nazis and Communism, homesexuals hid their deviancy and debauchery, negro fathers raised their families, and American women were wives, mothers, and homemakers instead of bipolar security seeking shrews who think the world owes therm a living.

Robert Pinkerton

The United Nations is an assemblage of governments, i.e.: State personnel and personages at the socio-economic pinnacle in their respective countries. How many of such governments would be in power if their respective countries had such laws as our First Amendment or Second Amendment?